Intel has spilled a few more details about Silverthorne, its upcoming 45nm processor for UMPCs (Ultra-Mobile PC) and mobile internet devices (MIDs). Silverthorne was developed from the ground up for low-power devices, and Intel said today that the chip will consume no more than 2W of power and support HyperThreading (HT) technology. This means that although the Silverthorne is a single-core chip, it will appear to the host device as a two-core chip. It's unlikely to deliver the same performance boost that adding a second true core does, but it will deliver a significant speed improvement over the single-core parts that have been used in UMPCs to date. Intel didn't say how fast Silverthorne will run, but it did claim the design will scale to deliver 2GHz clock speeds with a 1W power consumption "some time in the future". Silverthorne will be paired with the 'Paulsbo' integrated chipset to form 'Menlow', Intel's next-gen UMPC platform. They're all expected to come to market in the April/May timeframe.

Silverthorne was developed from the ground up for low-power devices, and Intel said today that the chip will consume no more than 2W of power and support HyperThreading (HT) technology.

Click to expand...

Interesting assumption.
Assume for a minute it is as fast as a Core2 (single thread) at a 2W TDP. How is there a market left for Core2 then? They'd just glue 16 of these together for 32W and have a killer CPU.

I think we should look at VIA for a reference of low power performance.

Interesting assumption.
Assume for a minute it is as fast as a Core2 (single thread) at a 2W TDP. How is there a market left for Core2 then? They'd just glue 16 of these together for 32W and have a killer CPU.

I think we should look at VIA for a reference of low power performance.

Click to expand...

16 would be sahweet! low GHz would be the killer there, but i'd so buy one.

My reasoning was based that i can run 720p media from a 2.2Ghz P4 (478, no HT)
No matter what, this thing with HT will be faster, and a hella more efficient power wise.

Firstly is this even based on the Core microarch.? When '2W' hit me, the first thing that came to my mind was those 'high-end' ARM's .

That said. Well, even a 2.0 GHz Netburst CPU could handle HD Video content. So I'm sure this could go head on against the latest C7 from VIA. Maybe not for entertainment applications but more so for embedded solutions and the processor could come in BGA package.

Interesting assumption.
Assume for a minute it is as fast as a Core2 (single thread) at a 2W TDP. How is there a market left for Core2 then? They'd just glue 16 of these together for 32W and have a killer CPU.

I think we should look at VIA for a reference of low power performance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Intel would be worried, why?
They could use this as an excuse to push a new CPU socket, chipset and whole new CPU onto everyone.
Assuming this is a cheap processor to create (to be low powered, I'd guess it's got smaller die size, small process, etc.), Intel could easily add a bunch together a make a good turn over, from selling the same processor, slightly modified for its purpose.
Want it in a smart phone? Lower the speed, cut some cache, got yourself an efficient, fast, low powered CPU.
Want it in a UMPC? Don't bother changing a thing, even simpler.
Want it in a laptop? Make it a quad (at 2W, I think they can easily make a quad fit into the thermal specs of a light laptop, let alone a larger laptop).
Want it in a desktop? Make it into a 16-core CPU, and up the speed.

Still, performance probably won't be nearing Core Solo, but it would be good if it did.
Well, can't complain, a gigahertz per watt is mighty fine.

Yeah, and Intel would be worried, why?
They could use this as an excuse to push a new CPU socket, chipset and whole new CPU onto everyone.
Assuming this is a cheap processor to create (to be low powered, I'd guess it's got smaller die size, small process, etc.), Intel could easily add a bunch together a make a good turn over, from selling the same processor, slightly modified for its purpose.
Want it in a smart phone? Lower the speed, cut some cache, got yourself an efficient, fast, low powered CPU.
Want it in a UMPC? Don't bother changing a thing, even simpler.
Want it in a laptop? Make it a quad (at 2W, I think they can easily make a quad fit into the thermal specs of a light laptop, let alone a larger laptop).
Want it in a desktop? Make it into a 16-core CPU, and up the speed.

Still, performance probably won't be nearing Core Solo, but it would be good if it did.
Well, can't complain, a gigahertz per watt is mighty fine.

Click to expand...

Hyperthreading is the key here, even if the CPU doesnt have a huge amount of power, hyperthreading is what made the P4 good.

9400m/9600mGT 256MB - almost always using 9400m due to heat and battery

Hard Disk(s):

Corsair Nova V64 - only need 30GB for my install

Optical Drive:

There's one, just don't know when I last used it!

LCD/CRT Model:

1440x900 15" MBP screen + 1680x1050 20" Dell TFT

Case:

Crumpler Dark Side to protect the MBP

Sound Card:

Crappy stock on-board one

Power Supply:

Big battery and small power brick

Software:

OS X SL, Chrome, Eclipse, Parallels, VS 2010 EE

I'd love to get an 8-socket motherboard, and fill it with quad cores, with hyper-threading (if it's possible, of course), and just run a whole bunch of SuperPis, with the task manager open, viewing the processors doing their thing. Probably better than most films out now.

someone care to list the upcoming intels and their sockets? maybe start a new thread about it, and list the next gen CPU's socket they're for and when they're due to be released? its realy hard to keep track with intel bringing new stuff out all the time.